Hannity: Health savings accounts are the solution to the health care crisis (”make it mandatory”)

March 19th, 2009

Hannity today on health care:

There is an answer to the health care system. Every American should have an HSA and a catastrophic policy. A private medical savings account…I would make it mandatory. Everybody. And if you don’t have it you’re covered under the catastrophic policy. The answer is free market solutions always work.

Sigh. This is the problem with unraveling the garbage Rush and Hannity spew. It’s not just lies, it’s that they pile up unsubstantiated and outright bizarre claims on top of one another until they’re impossible to argue with.

There are so many points wrong with this statement as a “solution” to the health care crisis.

Where does he get his Health Insurance Account (HSA)/catastrophic insurance (High Deductible Health Plan, or HDHP) plan? Oh — according to the Treasury, it already exists.

Let’s parse out Hannity’s pronouncement bit by bit:

Every American should have an HSA.

So what is an HSA? The Treasury says:

A Health Savings Account is an alternative to traditional health insurance; it is a savings product that offers a different way for consumers to pay for their health care. HSAs enable you to pay for current health expenses and save for future qualified medical and retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis.

The money rolls over, so it’s not a “use it or lose it” proposition, and it’s tax-free, so that’s good. It earns no interest, so that’s bad.

Everyone “should” is an important part of his statement, but we’ll get to that in a bit, as he’s going to clarify it.

Hannity:

and a catastrophic policy.

That’s what the Treasury defines as a “High Deductible Health Plan” or catastrophic coverage (at least $1,100 deductible for singles and $2,200 for families).

So for families, you have to be able to afford

  • $12,000 average health insurance premiums for family coverage
  • $2,200 on top of premiums
  • an out-of-pocket total up to $11,200 (per the Treasury’s HSA site FAQ)
  • and on top of that sock money away into an interest-free HSA for smaller medical expenses.

How is that any different from buying your own insurance? All it is is a partner to carrying insurance. Buy high-deductible insurance, and then put money into an HSA instead of a regular savings account to plan for medical expenses.

If you have a job that provides insurance whose coverage qualifies you to use an HSA, it may be a good deal.

Hannity:

I would make it mandatory.

Ay, there’s the rub. If your job doesn’t provide insurance, you’re still right back where you started. You still need to buy your own coverage, and under the Hannity plan, not only are you forced to buy insurance, you’re forced to put money into an HSA.

Hannity:

and if you don’t have it [the money in your HSA, I assume], you’re covered under the catastrophic policy.

Actually

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Hannity | 1 Comment »

Does the AIG bonus scandal hurt Obama or Wall Street more?

March 18th, 2009

 

Larry Summers explains why AIG contracts are sacrosanct while UAW contracts are not

Larry Summers explains why AIG contracts are sacrosanct while UAW contracts are not

And it’s not a rhetorical question. The Obama Administration is taking a great deal of flak for, at best, being naive that they were going to be paid and have such an impact.

As the story unfolds, it’s been a succession of surprises, each more jaw-dropping than the last.

At first we were shocked that $165 million in bonuses was being paid by AIG in retention bonuses beginning last Friday.

Then we were shocked that both the Bush and Obama Administrations knew there were contracts in place, written last March, that AIG had with employees guaranteeing these bonuses.

Then we were shocked that the majority of the bonuses went to AIG’s Financial Products group — the very division responsible for trading in credit-default swaps, those securitized instruments of junk debt that brought down the world financial system.

Then we were shocked that the Obama Administration, having acted as if taken by surprise at the bonus news, actually knew the bonuses were coming.

So why didn’t Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, or chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers, or President Obama see this coming? 

They probably looked at it logically, and didn’t foresee the firestorm of popular ire the bonuses would ignite. What’s interesting is this perspective is coming from all sides: both the vile Rick Santelli (who, ironically, is defending people being rewarded with taxpayer money for failing) and the very cool Nate Silver have pointed it out. The conversation a few months back in the (upcoming) Obama Administration probably went a bit like this:

Hmm, these contracts they have from last March have something like a tenth of a percent of this bailout going to bonuses coming up…it’s worrisome but we have much bigger fish to fry.

Then furor erupts over the AIG bonuses, the Administration discovers (remembers?) that appearances do mean a lot — even though the bonuses are a tiny fraction of the bailout, they carry heavy symbolism. 

Here are the dominant memes, and what people on the street are saying and thinking:

  • The arrogant fat cats on Wall Street reward themselves with taxpayer money for failing. No one in the real world gets bonuses when their company does bad.
  • The arrogant fat cats on Wall Street don’t give a damn about the taxpayer. We’re just “the little guy” to them. Their hubris is so blind that they think they say they are paying “retention bonuses” with a straight face, even when they are paid to people who have left their company.
  • Why were Wall Street contracts off the table to renegotiate, while Republicans (this point was a partisan one) raise a hue and cry that the UAW must make concessions and scrap their current contract for a new one before any bailout money is even considered?

It’s  unusual for the Obama Administration to suffer from such a tin ear. I wonder if anybody actually believed AIG would have the balls to pay out these bonuses to the division that brought down the world economy. 

AIG called our bluff. Whose image will suffer more, the administration’s or Wall Street’s? The administration has a black eye from this, but it has time on its side, both forward and back: they weren’t in charge even two months ago, and they have years in front of them to make things right. They can — and will — push for responsible financial regulation and SEC oversight. They should redraw the lines between banks, insurers, and investment firms. And they should make sure none of these companies are “too big to fail” ever again. If Obama succeeds in even one of these goals, it will help make up for these early stumbles in dealing with his predecessor’s problems.

As for Wall Street, there’s little they can do at this point save retire in droves, don monk’s robes, and dedicate their lives to washing the feet of lepers. The country at large has always been suspicious of money made by moving other money, as Jon Stewart pointed out in his pummeling of Jim Cramer:

But isn’t that part of the problem? Selling this idea that you don’t have to do anything. Anytime you sell people the idea that sit back and you’ll get 10 to 20 percent on your money, don’t you always know that that’s going to be a lie? When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work. That we’re workers and by selling this idea that of “Hey man, I’ll teach you how to be rich.” How is that any different than an infomercial?

And their behavior over the past months only cements the nation’s opinion of “fat cats living the high life, making money by cheating other people out of theirs through hinky financial schemes, crying to the government when their schemes fail, and then paying themselves millions for and patting themselves on the back for not only failing, but for hoodwinking the taxpayer to so naively hand them bailout money.”

Whew.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Take a break from talk radio | No Comments »

Sean Hannity: People without health insurance should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and negotiate cash arrangements with health care providers

March 16th, 2009

Hannity took a caller today who talked about how “resourceful” her mother was when she was a child. The family didn’t have health insurance, and they never had a problem with that state of affairs. When they needed to visit the doctor or dentist, her mother would negotiate, telling them she was paying cash to see what kind of arrangements could be made.

The caller didn’t think lack of health insurance was a problem for families, and that lack of…”gumption,” perhaps, was the real problem. The real problem is that people who complain about trouble getting health insurance just aren’t bartering with their health care providers actively enough.

Hannity commiserated with the caller, agreeing fully, and used it as an opportunity to wax poetic:

It is a tribute to past generations, and a tribute to the American spirit…America’s got to go back to those independent roots…because if you want the “land of entitlement” you’re going to get a lower quality of health care, and you’re going to get rationing like they have in Great Britain.

There are only two teensy tiny problems with cash negotiation as a palliative for the health insurance problem.

1. Health care costs rise faster than inflation, GDP, and every other metric under the sun

Let’s assume Hannity’s caller is around 40 years old. In 1980, she would have been about 11, right in the middle of childhood.

The cost of health care in the United States far outpaces the rate of inflation, and has one of the highest growth rates in per capita health care spending since 1980 among higher income countries.

1980: $1,072 in health expenditures per capita.
2007: $7,421 in health expenditures per capita.

(In 1970, when the caller was 1 year old, the United States spent $352 per capita.)

Could the caller’s mother have afforded to spend more than seven times what she actually spent on health care for her children? If she were raising a family today without health insurance, that’s what she’d have to do. A test that cost a thousand dollars then could cost over seven thousand dollars today. Even assuming with her mad bartering skills she negotiated the cost in half, that’s three-and-a-half times what she paid back in the day.

Visits and procedures that would have been manageable in a cash system in 1980 are nearly impossible to budget for now. For those with even mild chronic conditions like high blood pressure or type II diabetes, regular doctor visits and medications will break the bank. Perhaps the doctor will cut you a deal, and if you’re poor enough, the pharmaceutical company may provide assistance filling your prescriptions, but that’s a lot of ifs.

Not many people have $100,000 socked away in a “just in case” fund to pay for an unexpected surgery or chronic illness, when even in 1980 those same people might have been able to pay $13,000 — its equivalent — in installments.

And what if you develop a mystery illness? Blood tests, MRIs, and other diagnostic procedures rack up costs quickly, and if your doctor has to cycle through several different tests in order to pinpoint what’s wrong, there’s another several thousand dollars you’re on the hook for. 

2. Catastrophic care is impossible to budget for

Both Hannity and his caller ignore another facet of health care that would have been just as valid in 1980: catastrophic care, without health insurance, will bankrupt you. I’m not sure what the caller’s mother did about this threat. Perhaps she simply did what everyone without health insurance does today, even those that negotiate cash discounts for their everyday care: cross their fingers and hope nothing bad happens, and accept that if something bad does happen, they’ll wind up one of the 50% of bankruptcy filings that are due to medical bills.

 

Health care and health insurance isn’t an issue we as a nation can sweep under the rug any longer. National health expenditures (NHE) as a percentage of GDP continues to rise:

nhe_gdp05 Sean Hannity: People without health insurance should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and negotiate cash arrangements with health care providers

And the United States continues to spend an order of magnitue more per capita on health care than any other high-income, industrialized country:

 

U.S. spends more per capita than other nations

U.S. spends more per capita than other nations

It’s an issue that has to be dealt with, and bartering with chickens for immunization shots isn’t the solution any longer.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Hannity | No Comments »

Keith Olbermann explains 20 years of history behind the financial meltdown in five minutes

March 11th, 2009

It’s worth it too. Forget all the garbage about “poor people buying houses they couldn’t afford.” The economic crisis was decades in the making and had myriad causes (as I’ve been saying, so this helps vindicate me).

This is the best retelling of the causes behind today’s recession woes that I’ve seen yet. It’s comprehensive, fast-paced, and stunning.

Take five minutes out of your day to absorb this.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Take a break from talk radio | No Comments »

James Madison wants another Great Depression, sez Rush

March 10th, 2009
James Madison: Another Republican hoping the president fails (so says Rush)

James Madison: Another Republican hoping the president fails?

Rush is happier than a pig in mud.

Never mind that he is a pig in mud; he’s positively glowing these days. Everyone is talking about him, and, being the narcissist that he is, he can’t help talking about how everyone is talking about him. It’s verbal masturbation; he’s sucking his own politi-cock.

One consequence of this self-love is that he’s got the fuel to talk until the cows come home about how he doesn’t really want the president to fail.

(Today’s specialty: colorful barnyard metaphors.)

But today…today he’s really outdone himself. Puffed up with his own grandiloquence, Rush has decided that not only he, not only the far right, not only Congresspeople with raunchy last names (Boner, tee hee), no, not just them, but the Founding Fathers want President Obama to fail.

James Madison in particular. (Rush stole this from the D.C. Examiner, by the way.)

And Rush is getting all pseudo-scholarly about it too.

The Federalist Papers! …rife with arguments about the separation of powers.

Well, yah. Tenth grade history.

If only Rush had been bringing this up during the transformation of the presidency into the “unitary executive” over the past eight years. But wait, there’s more:

The founding fathers knew absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is why we separate powers, we have checks and balances.

Still tenth grade history. Just what are you getting at, Rush?

The system was designed to ensure the president fails when he is wrong…Assuming that the presidency must succeed results in a cult…by the people who not only wanted George Bush to fail but worked night and day to ensure that he failed. James Madison knew Obama and Pelosi’s type!

There we go!

This is Rush’s classic argumentative stance. Nearly all of his arguments are straw man arguments built upon “poisoning the well” statements, and this is one of them.

First, he builds a base of authority — the Federalist Papers! Number 63, to be exact! James Madison! Founding Fathers!

Then, he states facts that everyone knows, and that familiarity has a calming effect on the listener — checks and balances, separation of powers — and has them nodding in recognition (if not yet agreement).

Finally, he links current controversies to these familiar facts, and uses incendiary language to rouse and anger the listener — Cult! Hypocrites who wanted Bush to fail! Obama and Pelosi’s “type”!

The result is farcical implications that an unthinking listener would just accept unconsciously. He rarely says anything really controversial straight out anymore — “I want Obama to fail” was the last one — and instead prefers to strongly imply.

He repeatedly states today (and for past weeks) that he doesn’t want the president to fail, he wants his policies to fail.

What happens if the president’s policies fail? This isn’t the Clinton era where policy failure means no gays in the military. This is the deepest recession since the 1930s (it’s passed 1981 now) with no bottom in sight. The president’s economic policy so far has consisted of what every reputable economist in the world prescribes in the event of a deflationary spiral — massive spending by the only player big enough to do it, the government — and even Nobel Prize-winning economists are saying it hasn’t been enough.

What is your goal if you want ARRA (the stimulus) to fail? What happens if the president’s policy fails?

Oh, yeah, worldwide economic depression, instability, and hardship.

This is what Rush, and those who say they want the president’s economic policy to fail, are hoping for. Catastrophe. There’s really no other way around it.

Did I want Bush’s policies to fail? That thought never, ever crossed my mind. Obviously I’m partisan. I thought Bush was woefully inadequate for the job, a puppet whose strings were pulled by Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

But I never wanted his policies to fail, especially not the ones that got implemented. I didn’t want the Iraq War to fail, even though I was staunchly against starting it. I was against cutting taxes for the wealthy, but I didn’t want our economy to fail because of it to somehow “prove” I was right.

But not Rush. He wants catastrophe. So his side can claw back some power.

He’s saying — oops, implying — that the Founding Fathers would support the failure of the country so that the opposition party has an opening to regain political power.

He’s saying that it’s patriotic to hope for the failure of the country in order to have an opening to regain political power.

That’s what Rush Limbaugh does, every day in every show. “Screw the country, get my guys back in power and keep them there.”

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Rush | No Comments »

Newt Gingrich: the GOP’s savior?

March 6th, 2009

Hannity continues the anointing of Newt Gingrich as the GOP’s savior. The former Speaker of the House, who orchestrated the 1995 government shutdown — perhaps the earliest example of the modern GOP’s tendency to throw hissy fits — talked with Hannity on his show today.

The Ging was positively bubbly. Hannity, obviously hoping for a downbeat answer, asked him how he was doing financially. Gingrich dodged the question, cheerfully crying,

We’re Americans! We may be having some problems, but I’m American and I’m doing well.

He said the GOP should feel very positive right now, explaining,

We can be happy and cheerful as Reagan always was because A) we represent the truth and B) we represent the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Funny, I thought Reagan was always happy and cheerful because of the Alzheimer’s lesions on his brain that kept him from knowing what was going on.

And Newt, Newt, Newt. The GOP represents “the overwhelming majority of the American people”? Where were you November 4, 2008?

Party Identification

In fact, Democrats hold a higher advantage in party identification over Republicans than they have since 1983.

Is Gingrich saying that people identifying as Democrat don’t know what they are saying? Or is he using some different metric altogether? I’d be interested in seeing the science behind his claim.

Clearly Gingrich is gearing up for a 2012 run, in spite of accusing the media of making hasty assumptions even though he told them he was considering running for president in 2012.

Gingrich is also clearly attempting to put a forward-looking spin on the GOP, rebranding it as the party of economic optimism through his bubbly demeanor, Reagan references, and attempting to focus on the positive. Will Americans buy it? Gingrich’s counting on our memories to be short,  to forget the years and wasted millions on a constant Clinton witchhunt, and the government shutdown, among other things.

Gingrich wasn’t all Mr. Nice Guy. He inexplicably took a jab at John Kerry, of all people. He was talking about the “hypocrisy” of Congress criticizing frivolous events sponsored by financial institutions receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer money.

You hear John Kerry say golf tournaments aren’t acceptable when apparently windsurfing would be.

Nice wayback machine you have there, Newt. You’re bringing up the 2004 election, when video of John Kerry windsurfing was used to mock him for being “elitist”? Are you really beating that dead horse?

Yeah, that “elitist” charge really worked well for you guys in 2008.

Glad to hear you’re keeping it alive.

Please use it in 2012 too.

President Bush's $2,300 bicycle

George W. Bush’s Trek bicycle: $2300

kerry-windsurfing Newt Gingrich: the GOPs savior?

John Kerry’s windsurfing gear: $2,000-$2500 (full windsurfing gear including board, sail, mast, boom, mast extension, universal joint, uphaul rope, harness, and wetsuit)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Hannity | No Comments »

Is the Obama tax cut for 95% of working Americans a lie?

February 27th, 2009

Rush says so. He says the credit must be counted as income on your following year’s taxes.

So what is the “Making Work Pay” tax credit?

Business and corporate law information guys CCH explain it pretty clearly:

The “Making Work Pay” tax credit would cut taxes for more than 95 percent of working families in the United States. For 2009 and 2010, the bill would provide a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and $800 for working families. This tax credit would be calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income, and would phase out for taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $75,000 ($150,000 for married couples filing jointly). Taxpayers can receive this benefit through a reduction in the amount of income tax that is withheld from their paychecks, or through claiming the credit on their tax returns. This proposal is estimated to cost $116.199 billion over 10 years.

For those of us who aren’t business and corporate law consultants, there’s still a bit that’s unclear in there.

What is a “refundable” tax credit?

Wikipedia says:

Tax credits may be characterized as either refundable or non-refundable, or equivalently non-wastable or wastable. Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax. Examples of refundable tax credits include the earned income tax credit and the additional child tax credit in the U.S., and working tax credits or child tax credits in the UK.

Thus the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the proper name for the stimulus bill) tax credit is refundable, meaning you can receive the full amount of the credit you qualify for, even if you owe less income tax than that total.

This has been criticized in the right-wing media as “cutting checks for people who don’t pay taxes,” or in other words, straight-up welfare. There are two fallacies prevalent in that argument.

First, if we’re going to call refundable tax credits welfare for people who don’t pay taxes, we must include the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) and the CTC (Child Tax Credit), both of which are also refundable tax credits. Additionally, they may have to un-canonize Saint Reagan, who greatly expanded the EITC in 1986. This has the added bonus of implicating Saint Reagan in the expansion of “welfare” (if the right insists on calling refundable tax credits that), contradicting Reagan’s spoken opposition to welfare.

Second, the refundable tax credits do cut checks for people whose income tax liability may be lower than the credit. Conveniently forgotten by the pundits are the myriad other taxes the poor pay — like 15.3% payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, which comes right off the top from the very first dollar earned (if not self-employed, only half of that is seen directly in their paycheck; the other 7.65% is reflected in wages being lower than they would be without the employer-mandated contribution). There is also the federal gasoline tax, along with state sales taxes, state income taxes, and so on.

Do I have to count the tax credit as income the following year?

The IRS says:

Though all eligible taxpayers will need to claim the credit when they file their 2009 income tax return next year, the benefit will generally be spread out over the paychecks they receive beginning this spring and continue until the end of the year.

This is where ol’ Rush went astray. You don’t count it as income, or extra income. You claim it on your tax return, even though you are receiving it in regular dribs and drabs through a slightly larger paycheck. If you’ve been receiving the tax credit throughout the year, and suddenly get a large jump in pay at the end of the year that pushes you over the $75,000 income mark for singles or $150,000 income for couples, then it could mean you wind up not getting to keep the credit. So basically, claiming the credit only potentially negatively affects people in this unique situation, where they wind up not qualifying for it after all.

The lie: The “Making Work Pay” tax credit is a lie, is welfare for people who pay no taxes, and must be counted as income on the following year’s taxes

The truth: The “Making Work Pay” tax credit is a refundable tax credit like the Earned Income Tax Credit; people who owe low or no income tax liability still pay several forms of completely regressive federal taxes; and the credit must be claimed on the following year’s taxes.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Rush | No Comments »

Prediction: Rush will talk about Janeane Garofalo on today’s show

February 27th, 2009

The obsessive Rush Limbaugh is going to obsess over Janeane Garofalo today, we predict. She dissected his mental state on Countdown last night, which is something that always gets his attention:

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Rush, Take a break from talk radio | No Comments »

My father, too, came from a distant land

February 26th, 2009

We’re taking a one-day sabbatical from untangling the wharrgarbl that is Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. There’s only so much one can take. Consider it a sanity day.

Instead, we’re delighting in this snippet from last night’s Keith Olbermann show. It features Richard Wolffe, who I have the hugest political geek crush on, commenting on Bobby Jindal’s unfortunate post-faux-State-of-the-Union speech. You know the Bobby Jindal speech. The one that tanked any chance he would have ever had at running for president. The one where he talked to us as if we were toddlers, making up stories about evil bureaucrats and reassuring us that while his father came from a distant land, he’s indeed American.

Wolffe mocks the hell out of the speech in about ten seconds flat, and with class and humor:

OLBERMANN: Did Mr. Limbaugh conflate there, I mean, substance and style?

WOLFFE: Well, Keith, you know, I can understand where Bobby Jindal is coming from. You see, my father, like his and like the president of the United States, came from a distant land far away across the seas. A continent where we have supermarkets but no goods in the aisles. And he took me down the aisle one day and he said, “Son, if you ever use one of these stories, it means you are all out of stories.”

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Take a break from talk radio | No Comments »

Were George W. Bush’s one-month approval ratings better than Obama’s?

February 25th, 2009

Were George W. Bush’s one-month approval ratings better than Barack Obama’s?

Hannity thinks so. He crowed:

President Obama’s one month approval rating is at 59%…Exactly 8 years ago, the newly elected President Bush’s numbers were at 62%.

He’s not too far off. According to Gallup, historically presidential one-month approval ratings are high.

One month approval ratings for recent presidents (percent who approve):

presapproval Were George W. Bushs one-month approval ratings better than Obamas?

Obama’s approval rating today may be 59%, but 30 days in it was 63%. At least that is what Gallup says, and since they’re the ones who do the polls, I’m inclined to believe them.

As the graph and video tell us, initial approval ratings aren’t predictive of a president’s eventual success or final ratings. Carter’s presidency is still viewed as something of a failure, but his one-month approval rating is the hightest of any recent president. This is probably due to initial excitement at having a new administration unrelated to the tainted Nixon regime. Reagan, by many accounts, had enormous success (though whether that success was good for the country is questionable), yet came into office with just 55% approval after 30 days.

A nice man from Gallup explains:

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Hannity | 1 Comment »

Hannity: Obama ordered an $11 billion fleet of helicopters for himself and his family

February 24th, 2009
Marine One and Washington Monument

Marine One and Washington Monument

Sean Hannity today, about that awesome press conference-style meet President Obama held with members of Congress:

Now McCain raised the question about the new helicopter fleet on Monday. By the way, the price tag for the new fleet, 28 helicopters…$11 billion dollars. He was ordering an $11 billion helicopter fleet for him and his family! All while he wants to cut defense spending 10%!

Why add “and his family”? Why, for the outrage, of course. He’s not just ordering them to jet around the country in on official business, he’s ordering them for his family! So Malia and Sasha can fly in a helicopter to visit their friends in Chicago on a whim!

By adding, “and his family!” Hannity implies that Obama intended to misappropriate public funds that go towards performing his job for personal use.

Sort of reminds one of a certain Republican governor who actually has done that, and been ordered by her state to pay taxes on those funds she appropriated for personal use. Alaska governor Sarah Palin, of the come-hither vice-presidential debate wink and 6-year sports journalism degree, was ordered by her state to pay taxes on $17,000 in per diems she charged the state while working from her Wasilla home.

Aside from the highly questionable ethics of demanding an extra $60 a day to stay home and not travel anywhere, is anyone so naive as to not believe that is income that must be reported? Or did she just think no one would notice?

Meh. Enough about Caribou Barbie.

More about those helicopters Hannity says Obama ordered.

Wait…he’s been in office 30 days and he’s already ordered an $11 billion fleet of helicopters for the White House? Why wasn’t this in the news?

Because Obama didn’t order them. The Bush Administration ordered them in 2002.

From MSNBC:

Some of the existing fleet of 19 presidential helicopters, any of which is known as “Marine One” when the president is aboard, are more than 30 years old. Several have broken down on presidential trips, a concern that prompted then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card to begin the replacement process in 2002.

Lie: Obama ordered an $11 billion fleet of helicopters
Truth: the Bush Administration ordered an $11 billion fleet of helicopters in 2002

To be fair, replacing the fleet of Marine One helicopters really isn’t such a bad idea, judging by their age and how they are beginning to break down more often over time. It’s something that has to be done at some point, and in the wake of 9/11 replacing the aging fleet became a security issue.

The real scandal here isn’t that new helicopters were ordered.

The real scandal is that those new helicopters were originally slated to cost $6 billion dollars, a quote that has mushroomed over the years to nearly double. Overruns are common with defense contractors — in this case Lockheed Martin — and on top of that, there is little oversight or penalty for such overruns.

Overruns are common in government contracts, but military overruns are the ones we hear about, and for good reason. $5 billion extra, in the case of the Marine One fleet, is a hell of a lot of money. $5 billion here, $5 billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money. Add in a Defense Department that in the wake of 9/11 has had an 8-year license to print money and a resulting disincentive to police itself or its procurement policies, and you get projects like this one with near 100% overruns.

John McCain may have been trying to get a “gotcha” moment when he thought he was putting Obama on the spot about the helicopters. We know now that the president gave a humorous answer — “The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me” — and said he was talking to Defense Secretary Gates about the issue.

McCain didn’t trap the president after all, and he may have done a great service: public interest in defense procurement policies is now at the forefront, and the Obama Administration has the force of public opinion behind it as it moves forward to reduce waste in military procurement as well as in overall spending.

Postscript: Hannity says Obama wants to cut military spending 10%. If only! In fact, Obama wants to cut the requested budget by 10%. You know, the pie-in-the-sky budget full of whipped cream and hunky cabana boys that they always submit, knowing that they won’t really get everything they asked for (Bush years excepted). The military budget itself? It will still go up 8%, by $40 billion.

Nice doublespeak, Hannity.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Hannity | No Comments »

Lie of the day: Rush Limbaugh claims conservatism is open to everyone, no matter their “sex, race, or religion.”

February 23rd, 2009

Yeah, going with a softball for today’s lie.

Rush Limbaugh said on his show today that the Republican party and conservatives should be irresistible to voters because they’re open to everyone, no matter their “sex, race, or religion.”

He said that. He said that the Republicans are the party of inclusion.

Stop laughing.

And let’s parse that, shall we?

Sex

The National Federation of Republican Women reports that 17% of congresspeople are women. That’s 91. Not quite the 50-51% that are in the general population, but 91 Republican congresswomen ain’t bad, is it?

Oh, wait. That’s 91 women, Republican and Democrat included.

Only 21 Republican women serve in Congress, 4 Senators and 17 Representatives.

Republican women make up nearly 4% of Congress.

At the state level, Republican women fare a bit better, especially amongst governors where they’re even with Democrats at 4 and 4, but there are still less than half the Republican women holding high state office as there are Democratic women.

As far as sexual orientation goes, there are no openly gay Republican members of Congress, although closet cases can be identified by their penchant for introducing anti-gay legislation (see: Larry Craig).

Race

I could only dig up data from the 110th Congress (the 111th was sworn in January 2009).

6 minorities of the Republican persuasion served in the last Congress: 4 Hispanics, 1 Asian (Bobby Jindal, now Governor of Louisiana), and 1 American Indian. No blacks.

1.1% minorities! Go Republicans!

By contrast, minority Democrats held 13.3% of seats in Congress and 25% of Democratic seats.

Religion

St. Reagan

St. Reagan

The Republicans have been the party of the religious right since the early 1980s, after gaining ground in the 70s and coming into its own with the election of Saint Ronald Reagan, who was in the back pocket of fundamentalist Christian leaders.

Conservative “think tanks” write “vision statements” about how America is a nation “under God” and “Politics is less important than ideas, culture and religion.”

Religion itself is deified by conservatives, with Mitt Romney intoning, “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.”

If one isn’t a Christian, or isn’t religious, there’s not much to welcome them in the conservative movement or the Republican party. Can you imagine a Muslim or a Buddhist at a Republican Convention? The Muslim would likely need fear for their life, while the Buddhist would be sneered at for not believing in god.

Meanwhile, Dems have 2 Buddhists and a Muslim in Congress. Just saying.

The Dems are far from perfect, but they’re also a far more inclusive party than the Republicans are right now. Methinks Rush was dreaming of an ideal future for conservatism when he went on about how the movement was so warm and welcoming to women, minorities, and people of any religion — because conservatism today is demonstrably unwelcoming towards and lacking women, minorities, or non-Christians.

Arguably, it’s voices like blowhard Rush holding conservatism back. If he weren’t making shit up every day like how the right is inclusive, perhaps the right would be able to develop the self-awareness to realize they aren’t inclusive, and hey, maybe let’s try welcoming a variety of folks.

Hell, Rush, keep on talking. I’m starting to think you’re on my side after all.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Rush | No Comments »

Open line Friday? More like no calls, all rants

February 20th, 2009

It was another light day for Rush. It was supposed to be open line Friday, where he takes calls for the majority of the show, but instead he ranted about the usual — the “drive-by media,” Obama, the Fairness doctrine, and how Barney Frank caused the financial crisis.

Check out the themes for the day. Remember, I use the exact words Rush does. Watch for these themes to appear or continue to appear on other media:

  • People who voted for Obama are having second thoughts
  • People who see racism (in anything) are whining
  • The stimulus is to appease slackers and losers
  • The Fairness Doctrine will be re-instituted, and Obama is able to say he won’t re-institute it because it’s not his call and he doesn’t have to sign off on it
  • The Obama Administration is creating chaos in the markets and willfully letting them slide
  • The financial crisis was brought on by Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, the CRA, Democrats, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Jimmy Carter

As you see, today’s show was light on facts or made-up facts, and heavy on ranting and finger-pointing.

Rush engaged in the typical conservative talk radio strategy of painting his agreeing listeners as the only good, honest, hardworking, patriotic Americans and demonizing everyone else as evil, dishonest, lazy un-American monsters.

One way he does this is by taking a topic, ranting angrily about it for a few minutes, and then pointing out how it affects the listener.

Take the mortgage proposal, for instance. He started out explaining his vision of the financial crisis came about, like so:

“What happened was, that a bunch of liberal democrats decided the impoverished have been taking it on the chin for too long…so they said, “We’re going to find a way to put them in homes…it’s hello Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae…CRA, Jimmy Carter….

All these people were telling people “If you don’t lend these people money we’re going to investigate you.”

So far so good. You probably know that the CRA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Jimmy Carter have next to zero blame for the subprime mortgage debacle.

If you didn’t know that, express interest and I’ll write a post explaining it. It’s kind of a long explanation. The short version: with the integration of financial services, banks (who were also investment firms and insurers) discovered a way to make subprime lending very profitable: Package up the loans they made and sell them to someone else as an investment. These collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, were then repackaged and resold, and through the magic of the market, rose in credit rating each time, until near the end of the bubble you had what were basically junk vehicles rated AAA. Trillions in funny money was created through the selling and reselling of these investment vehicles, until the bubble popped.

Whew. And that was the short version. Also, the CRA never forced any banks to make any loans, less than 20% of subprime mortgages were even written by banks covered by the CRA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were dragged along for the ride and didn’t start or cause anything, and Jimmy Carter…we can’t even go there. There might have been some deregulation during his presidency; I’m not going to look it up right now. I may do an exhaustive debunking sometime.

So, first Rush set up his demons — the bleeding heart liberals wantonly using government to interfere in the markets to put poor people in homes —

Now he gives the demons names. He tells his listeners who to hate.

“The focal point of blame should be aimed at Barney Frank, at Christopher Dodd, Democrats in Congress…the SEC which gave value to these worthless mortgages we’re now being told are patriotic…”

Now he’s got listeners engaged, possibly angry; they know who’s to blame. But how does it affect them personally?

Rush tells them.

You who were responsible and took out loans you could afford:

YOU are the ones getting punished.

YOU have to pay for these people who couldn’t pay in the first place.

Not only is the misguided government, mismanaged by liberals, creating these problems, they also want YOU to pay to solve them! is his message.

Rush preys upon basic human urges — the need to feel part of a group, the need for things to have a reason, the need for clear answers — but he does it in a decidedly Lord of the Flies way.

The country according to Rush isn’t one nation, indivisible. It’s two nations, eternally divided, and even worse, the other guys (the ones who aren’t Rush’s definition of conservative) are hellbent on destroying America.

It’s paranoia. It’s paranoia that these shows thrive on.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Rush | 1 Comment »

Hannity insanity 2/19/09

February 19th, 2009

A few things Sean Hannity  claimed today on his radio show:

“The Bush tax cuts got us back on a fiscally sound foundation.”

“The harvest salt mouse…mouse is a pet project, isn’t it?”

“Did Obama appoint lobbyists to his Cabinet? There’s 21 of them.”

The first, “Bush tax cuts got us back on a fiscally sound foundation [after the Clinton Administration]” I can’t even begin to get into, for obvious reasons.

The second, how many lobbyists Obama has appointed, is unclear. The Times of India claimed on January 31 that Obama had appointed 17 lobbyists, but offered no list, and the editorial this is reported in (not a news item) has a decided slant, including this gem:

Dreams are dreams. Facts are facts. President Obama is surrounded by corrupt lobbyists ready to sell America cheap. One good silver lining – if Obama Adminsitration’s corruption index is 10, Bush Administration’s was 95.

Politico on January 28 listed 12 lobbyists Obama had tapped for top posts.

I don’t doubt the veracity of the Politico list. It seems Obama has certainly appointed a dozen or more lobbyists to his top posts.

But how does 12 rise to 17 three days later, and 21 today?

The third, something about a mouse? You may have seen the video where Rep. Steve King rails against “$30 million dollars for the salt marsh mouse of California.” Somewhat amusingly, I might add:

Unfortunately, the $30 million wasn’t actually for mice at all. Reports the Idaho Statesman:

Republicans in Congress criticizing the $787 billion stimulus alleged last week the mouse would get $30 million.

That’s also incorrect: that was what the California State Coastal Conservancy, a state agency, proposed for “shovel-ready” projects eligible for stimulus money. Wetlands restoration included some mouse habitat.

Let’s parse:

  1. Some stimulus money will go to California
  2. Some of California’s stimulus money may go to the California State Coastal Conservancy
  3. Some of the California State Coastal Conservancy’s proposed “shovel-ready” projects include wetlands restoration
  4. Some wetlands include salt marsh mouse habitat

One wonders why Hannity didn’t simply claim the entire $780 billion bill was going to mice. He’s already leapt from (4) to (2). Why not leap all the way to (1)?

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Hannity | No Comments »

Does SCHIP cover “children” up to age 30 now?

February 19th, 2009

Themes for the day:

  • The chimp cartoon wasn’t racist, and people who think it is are whiners. It was actually about Nancy Pelosi
  • 50% of tax filers don’t pay income tax, and 30% get EITC
  • Obama is up to a massive restructuring of American society
  • Obama is a fear-mongerer
  • You’re going to wind up subsidizing people who refuse to pay their mortgage, so cities can collect property tax
  • Eric Holder is a whiner who hates America

So much wharrgarbl, so little time. This wasn’t one of Rush’s better days. He vacillated between topics much more than usual, and the rants rarely had a recognizable thread. Oh, there was ranting, and lots of it, but it was so disjointed I was rarely able to tease out exactly what it was relating to.

Plus, it was boring.

So, I threw a mental dart and it landed on “SCHIP.”

SCHIP wasn’t one of the stars of the show, and Rush mentioned it only in passing, commiserating with a caller over how the SCHIP expansion will cover children up to age 30.

Up to age 30, you say? Easy to investigate. Let’s look at the bill.

Odd. The bill only talks about children under age 19 (”or, if a State has so elected under the State plan under title XIX, age 20 or 21″). There’s nothing about 30 year olds in there, or anyone over 19 or 21.

Nothing.

So where on earth did this “up to age 30″ figure come from? It’s not in the bill. Rush and Hannity have been repeating this figure for weeks. Did they just pull it out of their asses?

A clue comes in the form of states’ employee health benefits programs.

New Jersey’s state employees health plan covers children up to age 23, and offers COBRA up to age 31. COBRA coverage is paid entirely by the individual and not the state.

That’s the only hard information I was able to gather. Every other tidbit that mentioned SCHIP covering 30 year olds was a forum post on a right wing site, and there were several of these

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Rush | Comments Off

« Older Entries